Re: Safety BS

From: Andy Callahan (quasideedle@uky.campus.mci.net)
Date: Fri Feb 27 1998 - 18:21:35 EST


At 05:28 PM 2/27/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>> Now you've come to the real root of the problem. Its not safety, its
MONEY!!!!
>> Cars are already safe, they have mandatory 5mph bumpers, side impact
>> bolstering regulations, crumple zones, airbags etc. Most of which SUV's and
>> especially trucks haven't usually had. The beef is from the insurance
>> industry more than anyone. They keep having to pay for the major damage
>> done to cars from SUV's, and trucks so they go on the PR offensive and try
>> to make said SUV's etc.. look like "bad things" because they weigh more and
>> destroy poor little cars. Its no secret, the insurnce industry freely
>> admits that they're concerned about the upswing in damage costs on car vs.
>> SUV/Truck collisions. It would really be hard to make cars safer
>> (rollcage?) so we get screwed by havng to put up with weaker trucks!
>>
>> Tony J. Mastres
>>
>You may be right, the insurance companies have a lot of clout and when
>anything costs them more moneythey do all they can to change it. As far
>as amking the cars safer, yes it can be done, look at the older cars (Say
>pre-86 models) when they were involved in a wreck with a truck they
>weren't really damaged anymore than the truck was, the problem is they've
>gone away from using STEEL in cars, but because of the towing requirements
>of trucks/SUV'c they have to keep using steel so when a steel truck hits a
>plastic/polymer/fiberglass car, of course the car has more damage, but if
>you notice when one hits an older car their is about equal damage, so if
>they went back to using steel in cars and having an actual frame (Which
>trucks & SUV's have) instead of the unibody design in the cars there would
>be no problem, but their to cheap to do that, so I guess we are stuck.....
>
>Bruce
>
>

I wouldn't call that cheap, I would call it economical. Think about it,
those cars that you are referring to weighed quite a bit more than the
unibody cars of today. These lighter cars require smaller engines to do
the same jobs as previous engines, which means better gas mileage, which
leads to less money spent and better emissions (thus saving the
environment). Smaller cars can also stop quicker. This is certainly a
safety concern. The same applies to SUV's and Trucks also: the lighter
the vehicle, the quicker it can stop. You have to remember that a lot of
car v. SUV wrecks probably occur when a car makes a sudden stop, but the
SUV can't quite get slowed enough or maneuver around the car. So, it slams
into the back of it and does very severe damage because of its size and
weight advantages over the car. I don't think trying to reduce the weight
of SUVs and trucks is a really bad thing. It'll happen sooner or later
anyway, so we might as well get used to it now.

Andy Callahan
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Andy Callahan University of Kentucky quasideedle@uky.campus.mci.net
        
 '97 Mustang GT, Laser Red/Medium Graphite Leather, 5-speed, 3.27 axle,
  17" wheels, Keyless Entry, ABS, Mach 460, K&N Off Road Aircharger,
  Cobra Leather Shift Knob
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:16 EDT